If in a language there is a pronominal form denoting the dual of the metapersons ‘hearer’, ‘hearer + non-participant’ and/or ‘non-participant’, then there are pronominal forms denoting the dual of the metapersons ‘speaker + hearer’ and/or ‘speaker + non-participant’.
Standardized
IF there is a pronominal form denoting the dual of the metapersons ‘hearer’, ‘hearer + non-participant’ and/or ‘non-participant’, THEN there are pronominal forms denoting the dual of metapersons ‘speaker + hearer’ and/or ‘speaker + non-participant’.
Keywords
personal pronoun, person, 2nd, speaker, hearer, non-participant, number, dual
Domain
inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type
implication
Status
achronic
Quality
absolute
Basis
400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons:’speaker’, ‘hearer’, ‘non-participant’, ‘speaker + hearer(s)’, ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, ‘hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’, and ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s). 2. Cf. the similar claim by Greenberg (#1409): The existence of a 2nd person dual pronoun seems to always imply that of a 1st person dual, whether with or without the inclusive-exclusive distinction, and/or a 3rd person dual.
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons:’speaker’, ‘hearer’, ‘non-participant’, ‘speaker + hearer(s)’, ‘speaker + non-participant(s)’, ‘hearer(s) + non-participant(s)’, and ‘speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s). 2. Cf. the similar claim by Greenberg (#1409): The existence of a 2nd person dual pronoun seems to always imply that of a 1st person dual, whether with or without the inclusive-exclusive distinction, and/or a 3rd person dual.